Minnesota wins

Not directly related, but a recent minor event throws light on what ID mean by teaching the controversy. Steve Jones, a minor player in the ID movement, has resigned from that movement at the suggestion of Philip Johnson. Jones was a friend a Johnson, and his host when Johnson went to Perth, Western Australia. He has also been twice acknowledged as providing help by Dembski in different books. He was the fact checker for Denyse O’Leary’s recent book. http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/books/b088.htm

In addition, his discussion list includes as members several leaders of minor ID organisations, including (I believe) Casey Luskin of the IDEA Centers, not to mention Phil Skell, probably the only member of the NAS who is friendly to the ID movement. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmg[…]s.php/id/754

In a recent post, Jones wrote:

I wish to announce that I have left the ID movement, my position having become increasingly untenable, due to my advocacy of of common ancestry within ID, it being finally suggested by Phil Johnson that I leave.

While the ID movement’s *official* position is that “intelligent design is compatible with … God seamlessly melding all organisms together into one great tree of life”: … in fact ID’s *real* position is that of the later Phil Johnson (see tagline), which is still heavily influenced by Biblical literalism, the earlier Phil Johnson himself in 1993 claiming that “The ‘evolution of human beings from apes’ is not an unacceptable hypothesis for me”: … but by 2002, common ancestry for Johnson had become (or maybe always was) “a fantastic proposition” (see tagline).

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Creat[…]message/9116

We should treat this summary with caution. Jones is notorious for misrepresenting, and misquoting the opinions of others. But it does appear that in Johnson’s opinion, while believing in common descent is acceptable, actually presenting the evidence for common descent is incompatible with being a member of the ID movement.

I believe this casts an illuminating light on the ID strategy of “teaching the controversy”.

Tom Curtis